HAFF Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, February 29, 2000

• 1113

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): Colleagues, I'll call the meeting to order. I see a quorum.

We're back on the matter we were not able to complete at the last meeting, and that is an adoption of a report from the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business involving a private bill from the Senate, Bill S-14, An Act to amend the Act of incorporation of the Board of Elders of the Canadian District of the Moravian Church in America. The report was presented by Mr. Jordan at our last meeting. We were ready to adopt it, but we did not proceed because of reasons related perhaps to quorum as much as anything to else. I would therefore put the question back out.

Do we have a mover for this?

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): I so move.

The Chair: It was moved last time, but Ms. Catterall will move it again.

The matter is on the floor. It has been moved by Ms. Catterall that we adopt the report. Are there any questions or comments? Monsieur Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): For reasons too long to explain, I could not attend the last meeting. Could the committee put me in the picture and explain what this is about exactly? I have a few notes here.

[English]

The Chair: Well, let's go to the clerk from the subcommittee. Perhaps she could just give us a very brief backgrounder.

• 1115

[Translation]

Ms. Bibiane Ouellette (Clerk of the Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business): It concerns a bill to amend the incorporation of a church. The requestor of a private members' bill must publish notice in the Canada Gazette and various papers, which the requestor did in 1993 and in 1995. However, the Senate did not act on the bill due to the death of the senator sponsoring it. The church has asked to have the application of Standing Order 130 suspended so the bill may proceed.

In its report, which it will be presenting to you today, the Sub-Committee on Private Members Business recommends approval of this suspension and the suspension of the provisions of Standing Order 134, which concerns rights and fees.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Are you saying the House should assume the costs?

Ms. Bibiane Ouellette: No, there would be no fees. The Standing Orders provide that the suspension of certain sections pertaining to bills involves certain costs. We are asking for a suspension of the application of the provisions pertaining to notices to be placed in the Canada Gazette and the fees associated with the suspension of these provisions.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Why would we do it in this case and not in others?

Ms. Bibiane Ouellette: This is a non-profit church in northern Alberta, which gave notice in 1993 and which does not want to pay additional fees. It is a matter of costs we do not consider necessary. We do not want the applicants to be penalized by the provisions of the Standing Order.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Johnston, could you enlighten us if you feel it's necessary? Just give us a short, succinct reference to substance. Please, don't spend any time on the procedure.

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I think Bibiane has covered it very well. I just want to make sure all members realize that the expense we're talking about is the expense to the Moravian Church to do the necessary advertising. When the necessary advertising was done in 1993—I believe that's when it was—there were no objections raised to proceeding in this fashion. The waiving of the Standing Orders is simply to forgo the Moravian Church having to go through all these steps and expenses again, and I would appreciate the cooperation of the committee.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We'll now move to our next item of business, which is a procedural item that we're calling the hundred-signature issue. We have the clerk and deputy clerk, Mr. Marleau and Mr. Corbett, with us.

Mr. Marleau, you have been good enough to draft some proposals that you believe would address the concerns raised by the members both here and in the House, and by the Speaker.

Colleagues, you will have had an opportunity to browse through and/or analyse those.

Mr. Marleau, would you like to comment on what your drafts do for us?

Mr. Robert Marleau (Clerk of the House of Commons): Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, before I ask Mr. Corbett to address the substance, I've tried to be as succinct as possible and as clear as possible. What you have before you in this proposed draft is a two-track proposal in accordance with the discussion you had at your last meeting. On the left-hand side would be a proposal to support the process. That is, just simply to transfer from one list to the other. On the right-hand side is a proposal to support the content of the specific item. That's a little more complex, so I'll let Mr. Corbett take you through that.

• 1120

Mr. William Corbett (Deputy Clerk of the House of Commons): Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, you'll note what we have done under the left-hand column, where there is support for the process. We have basically amended only two words. We have replaced the words in the current standing order, “who support a specified item”, with the words “who recommend that a specified item”. In essence, this means that members who grant the use of their signature are simply recommending that the item sponsored by a member be placed in the order of precedence.

In the right-hand column it gets a bit more complex, in that we enter the concept of support for the content of the item in question, be it a bill or a motion. We then have to address the question of seconding, where the members who will grant the use of their signatures are actually seconding the bill or the motion. This requires that we amend Standing Orders 86(3) and 86(4), and that we create new Standing Order 87(6), in which the operative words are “who wish to second a specified item pursuant to Standing Order 86(3)”. That refers back to the concept of seconding the item.

We also addressed the concerns of the committee that when you get into the question of supporting the content there ought to be some guarantees within the standing order that until the item comes into possession of the House, it remains the same as it was when the support was elicited by the member.

That brings us to the new Standing Orders 87(6)(b) and (c). Here we specify:

An item is eligible to be placed in the order of precedence pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section if, in the current session

(i) in the case of a bill, the signatures have been obtained following first reading,

—the bill has been introduced and it is in print—

or

(ii) in the case of a motion, the signatures have been obtained following the placing of the motion on the Notice Paper.

Therefore, the motion is in print. When members attach their name thereto, it will stay in that form until such time as it comes into possession of the House in a formal sense.

We then go on in 87(6)(c) to specify “that the item [remain] in the same form as when it was initially placed on notice”.

So on the “support for the content” side, we tried to address the question of the item remaining in the same form until such time as it comes into possession of the House, with the signatures remaining valid for a session.

The Chair: Colleagues, as your chair sees it, perhaps to recap a little bit, for the hundred or more members who would involve themselves in a private member's business item under the standing order, you have the concept of supporting the bill, you have the concept of seconding the bill, and you have a third concept of recommending that the bill go on the order of precedence, which of course doesn't necessarily mean you support all of it or second all of it. Those are three concepts the clerk is asking us to look at.

• 1125

Just to give us some tilt, at the present time, subject to whatever debate we have around the table here, of course, the chair leans toward the “recommending” concept, as opposed to seconding or supporting. I have a sense that if someone's going to sign on to recommending, then at least the bill ought to be in print, at first reading or on notice, as the clerk has mentioned. Your chair would therefore suggest that what is shown as the new 87(6)(b) should be moved over to the left-hand column.

The chair just thought he'd get things started off by biasing the whole process here.

Mr. Blaikie, then Ms. Parrish.

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Let's start by saying we don't all agree.

I begin by saying I had a lot of doubts about this whole hundred-signature business to begin with. If we go to a very weak concept of what it means to sign up these hundred names, then every private member's bill will have a hundred members on it. We'll be right back where we started, which is exactly what I was afraid of in the first place. It just seems we're going down that road. Not only do you not second it, not only do you not support it, you just recommend it. I just think that's far too weak a concept.

If we want to have this procedure at all, then I think signing has to mean more than simply wanting it to be placed in the order of precedence, or we're going to have all kinds of bills that meet this test, plus the bills that are drawn. I think we'll be back where we started in the sense of not being able to debate or vote on all private members' business. We'll have that expectation as a result of things being put in the order of precedence through this weak procedure.

I'm not sure we should merge seconding and supporting, but I certainly would be against having the very weakest notion of what it means to sign on.

The Chair: Ms. Parrish, then Mr. Hill.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I have some of Bill's concerns, but mine focus on the line in the second box on the right side that says “in the Order of Precedence and only one such seconded item shall be on the order of precedence at any time.”

From my discussions with the folks who sit on the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business now, it appears that once one comes through and there are a hundred signatures on it, it's almost guaranteed to be made votable. That's where the concept breaks down. I think that was changed after our report, because it was never the intention of the report to limit it to one per time. What you've then said to everybody is that once they second this and it gets on the order of precedence in April, it will automatically be made votable. On the other hand, if you had three on the order of precedence with a hundred signatures and you only had space for one, then the three would have to vie with each other. I think that's where the concept breaks down. It implies that if you run around like mad and get the signatures, you're automatically votable. That was not the intention of the committee at the time, and that was changed after it was rammed through.

I like the concept of support on debate, because there are a lot of bills I would support debate on because I'd like to see the thing debated in the House, but I would not support them in the end when it came time to vote. If you get right back to what the original concept was, it was to get a bill that was very controversial, whether you agreed with it or not, onto the order of precedence without waiting for the draw, which is a game of chance. The original concept was not to guarantee that the bill be made votable.

If you used the left column and took that one line out of the right column, if you have three with a hundred signatures, they're on there. You then draw the next seven or whatever you need to make a full complement. When you go into the committee, they are all equal in the eyes of the committee. If you're allowing only one through at a time, you're giving it far too much emphasis as a votable item. I think that's the fundamental problem here. Since I chaired the first committee that did the report and was then on the second committee, I can say that was never the intent.

The Chair: Just to clarify, are you leaning in support of the concept of support, seconding, or recommending?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Recommending, but only if you can fix the fatal flaw on the right side, which is that only one goes through at a time.

• 1130

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Hill and then Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): I want to go back to the clerk for the moment. My understanding is that when you first appeared before the committee on this particular issue, when pressed you said you felt it was the intent of the existing process to be one where the members are actually seconding the bill. That was my understanding, at least.

Mr. Robert Marleau: You asked me for my opinion, not for my opinion on the intent of the report.

Mr. Jay Hill: Okay.

Mr. Robert Marleau: I said that when pressed to give an opinion on the matter, I would say the concept of seconding was more consistent with our parliamentary practice than the concept of supporting. A member could second an item but vote against it. He's not necessarily declaring his support for an item by way of seconding.

Mr. Jay Hill: I think I pointed out that when a member does second anything such as a motion in the House, he or she cannot then amend it.

Mr. Robert Marleau: That's correct.

Mr. Jay Hill: Yet this particular item that brought all this to a head was changed, and the argument was used that because it received unanimous consent in the House and the member who had raised it as a point of privilege was present in the House, there shouldn't be a problem.

What I was trying to point out is that it's a bit of a contradiction to say that. If we view this process as one of seconding, then how could the member or any of those members also support changing it afterwards? Isn't that sort of a catch-22 there?

Mr. Robert Marleau: By way of our practice, when a member seconds an item, that means it is satisfactory to you, in terms of its form and content, to get it to the House before debate. Hence you are precluded from moving an amendment yourself. The member making the motion is also barred from moving an amendment to his own motion.

If an amendment be proposed, the seconder may vote for that amendment. In other words, the concept of support is really a process. You're saying the form of this amendment is valid enough to warrant the House's attention in its present form, but you're not bound by that other than the practice. Someone else besides the mover and the seconder ought to have an opportunity to move an amendment to it.

Mr. Jay Hill: I have one other concern that's been brought to light just very recently, and that is that the 100 signatures could be used a second time, in essence. If a bill is drawn the normal way and the individual has collected 100 signatures but the bill gets its one hour of debate and is dropped, the individual could resubmit the bill in the next session, after the House has been prorogued, and use the 100 signatures then. Is that correct?

Mr. Robert Marleau: Yes. Under the current draft that's possible, if you wish to....

Mr. Jay Hill: Do any of the three recommendations you've brought forward today correct that?

Mr. Robert Marleau: No. It puts a time limit on the current session for signatures that have been used, but it does not address the specific item you just raised. In other words, when were the signatures gathered and when are they going to be actually filed? You could cure that fairly simply by having members date their signature, and then the operative date of prorogation would render them null and void and unusable in the next session.

Mr. Jay Hill: So you'd have to collect them again if you resubmit the bill.

Mr. Robert Marleau: That's right.

Mr. Jay Hill: Even if it is in identical form?

Mr. Robert Marleau: Yes. Whatever way you want to go.

Mr. Jay Hill: I find myself agreeing with Mr. Blaikie. It just seems to me that this whole process, as with so many things, started out as a good idea. I think a lot of people were enthusiastic about it, but in hindsight it seems to be causing more problems than it's worth. If we just go with the weakest method of doing it, where you recommend that it get a jump-start on the process, if you will, I don't see how that's going to accomplish what the original people involved in this intended to accomplish, which is to have a process whereby a bill of some real content, a really important bill.... There was a way in which members from all parties could help that bill, give it a little push along the way, as it were. As Bill says, if we go with just recommending the idea behind it, everybody's going to do it and it becomes meaningless.

• 1135

The Chair: The mechanism we're reviewing is a mechanism intended to allow a private member to pre-empt the lottery, not to give it some extra points for support. Is that what you're saying? Is that what you assumed in your comments?

Mr. Jay Hill: No. I think just the opposite, Mr. Chairman. Well, I guess it's a little of both. My understanding, unless I was wrong about it all along, was that it was a way in which people could assess an individual member's idea that they formulate into a bill. Based on its merit, or what they've perceived to be the merit of that particular legislative change, they could support it. Then it would pre-empt the lottery process, yes.

It was because they thought that particular idea was important. It wasn't that they just like Joe Blow so they're going to sign this thing regardless of how silly they happen to think his bill is. I don't believe that was the intent.

The Chair: So you believe the signatures then should do more than just pre-empt the lottery.

Mr. Jay Hill: Exactly.

The Chair: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I will make a comment and then perhaps ask a question after. First, for the comment, I tend at first glance to agree with Mr. Blaikie and Mr. Hill, who are saying that a person's signature on a document should mean something. Since we were to lean towards the suggestion of a simple recommendation, it is a strong bet that, without knowing the purpose of a bill or a motion, its subject, its title or its purpose , members sign in order to get a colleague to sign their own bill or motion, the members' signatures are now meaningless. I think we should avoid this extreme. It should be ruled out.

That said, I agree somewhat with what Ms. Parrish has just said—that she would like the opportunity to debate an issue, even though she may not necessarily agree with it. I would like the opportunity, as a parliamentarian to say this issue seems important enough to me for us to debate it, even though I basically disagree with it.

Two opposites are in collision at the moment. Perhaps we should consider a measure in the middle. From what I understand, such a measure would involve support for the process but not necessarily support for the content of the bill.

However, this does not resolve the problem that led to the discussion we are having around this table today on the approach to avoiding changing in mid stream something that has been introduced and been signed and approved by a number of members.

Of course, I can support a bill and recommend its passage through the various stages, but I do so on the face of the bill as it is presented to me. It should not be possible to change the terms in mid stream, whichever of the three options are chosen. I do not think this resolves the question at all.

I wondered, and this is the point of my question, whether, from the standpoint of supporting a bill, new subparagraphs 87(6)(b) and (c) be introduced in any case.

• 1140

Mr. Robert Marleau: The answer is yes. Whatever formula you choose to support the content or the process, I think the new subparagraphs proposed for you in the right-hand column—I think it was what the Chair suggested at the start of deliberations—could be transposed to the left-hand column and applied as well. Subparagraph 87(6)(c) attempts to alleviate the concerns you have expressed, because it provides:

that the item remain in the same form as when it was initially placed on the notice.

Although one must never underestimate the imagination of the members, it seems to me that this section would put the process in a fairly restricted context.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Mr. Strahl, then Mr. Harvey.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know we're of two minds on whether we want to support the process or the content, but it seems to me that the way to make this whole thing less controversial is to make it more difficult to gather signatures, rather than easier.

If it's just a process thing, then it just becomes everybody signing everybody's private members' business. Theoretically, you could do away with the lottery because eventually you'd just have eight or nine out of ten items—everybody would support everybody else's process. We all want to have lots of private members' business. It's already starting to overtake the way we select bills.

It seems to me we want to make it more difficult, so I think we have to move to this idea of seconding and support for the content. As Jay mentioned earlier, I think that was the original intent of saying that if something were so important and so seized the House or so seized the members and they were so sure it should go ahead that they rushed forward, in huge numbers, to sign the bill, that's what it was about. It is a case that we can't leave this to the luck of the draw; we have to bypass the draw. It's something of paramount importance. It's not a matter of luck any more. We want this thing and we want it badly. That's not a recommendation for process; that's more a recommendation for content.

I think we want to make it, not impossible, but difficult to gather the 100 signatures. That's why I think if we move to the idea of the content, it will separate the wannabes from the real ones.

On the second part, the gathering of signatures, I think that gathering signatures after first reading is one way to make sure the bill is in the same form. That part of it all looks good to me.

The other part is we want to make it, not impossible, but reasonably difficult for people to gather those signatures. All of us who are being asked to sign will take into account, when we're making the signature, that we are seconding the bill, not just recommending that it go through a process of some sort. That will make it difficult, but closer to the original intent of the private member's hour—when something is that important, let's bypass the regular rules.

The Chair: Not to send a missile into your argument, but you have opted for the concept of seconding as opposed to the higher threshold of supporting.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Well, either one. I assume there's an assumption in the seconding that there's the level of support there. Recommending, though, is nothing. I guess there are three stages.

The Chair: Okay, we've agreed on the recommending, seconding and supporting. You've opted for the seconding.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Yes. Is there one that says “supporting” in here?

The Chair: The current standing order says “support”. The clerk found it difficult to work with that, because it's a novel concept for our standing orders and our traditions.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: “...who wish to second and support...”

The Chair: Now you really have the clerk going.

Do you prefer to go as high as we can, in terms of threshold?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Yes. Maybe I could ask the clerk, if we put the phrase “to second and support” in there, there's seconding, which is kind of a parliamentary term, and “support”. If you added into that new standing order “who wish to second and support”, how could anybody misinterpret that? That would be seconding the bill and supporting the content. Then it wouldn't be ambiguous, would it?

• 1145

Mr. Robert Marleau: No. As I said at your last gathering, you'd have to define what support meant, specifically. What if the bill came into the House in its present form that was on notice, was debated, no amendment was made to it at all, but during the course of debate you changed your mind on what support meant and you voted against the bill? So if you seconded and supported the bill and at the end of the day the proceedings identified you voting against the bill, you would have some explaining to do to someone, I would assume, in terms of that transfer.

The concept of support in the standing order has never really been defined, so if you're going to say “second and support”, you might want to at least explain what support means. Does it bind you to vote for the bill?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: No. In my mind, of course, it doesn't, but you would sign on to a higher level of endorsement than if you just recommended or seconded something. People often say they'll second something to get it on the floor for the group debate. But as you say, I think you should have to justify it.

It's not that you can't do it, but if you second it and support it, but then vote against it, you will have to explain to the world and to the person who brought in the bill why you changed your mind. I don't want people coming up later and saying “Oh, I never read the bill, so I finally learned about it and now I guess I...” To second and support something means that before you sign on the dotted line, Mr., Mrs., or Ms., you'd better have your research done, and you won't be just signing every bill that comes your way.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): I would like to say a few words, Mr. Chairman. I think there is consensus on the need to protect ourselves against arbitrary changes, as Stéphane was saying a few moments ago. There is also consensus on the terminology. The words we choose must reflect the fact that we can agree to having a bill tabled without necessarily supporting it. We must recognize that parliamentary tradition is deliberate and this fact helps us preserve our institutions.

It is hard to refuse to sign when a member comes up to us and says he wants to defend a given principle. For the whips, it is an easy matter since they can say the members of the sub-committee will determine the votable items. They know that the members of the sub-committee cannot accept all members' bills, but members are in a fairly difficult situation with regard to their colleagues. They will not have any problem however seconding the tabling of a motion or a bill.

This is why the word “supporting” in French is a poor choice, it is too inclusive. I think the text could be amended quickly to provide for seconding a bill rather than supporting it, because we do not support a bill in the space of a minute. Supporting a bill takes more responsibility than that. So, it is a way of protecting the members to say that they second a statement of principle for discussion purposes.

[English]

The Chair: I take that to indicate you lean in favour of the concept of seconding, as opposed to simple recommending or supporting.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: I would not want the terms of the bill to compromise us initially, Mr. Chairman. I prefer we talk of seconding the tabling of a private members' bill for discussion purposes.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Thank you.

Ms. Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I have a couple of questions.

If a bill gets through, goes to a committee and is amended there, is that not similar to what happened to Mr. Bryden's bill? If, for example, a committee made an amendment, would that not also, when it came back to the floor, jeopardize all those people who seconded it, with the concept of support?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That is not the same thing.

[English]

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: It's not the same thing?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No, to my mind, that is not at all the same thing.

[English]

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I was just asking the clerk a question to see....

• 1150

Mr. Robert Marleau: It could be a considerably different bill from what you seconded, supported, or recommended. But it would have been done by process of the House through the proceedings rather than....

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: But was not unanimous consent of the House also by process of the House?

Mr. Robert Marleau: Yes, but the distinction—

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: So those two are the same end result.

I think we have two problems here. One is the problem of Mr. Bryden's bill, which I think this committee needs to solve. The other problem we have is a racehorse designed by a committee, and I think this thing has become a camel.

One of the reasons it was brought up by the private members' subcommittee on this—that's a subcommittee of this committee—was time sensitivity. As you know, with the draw bills can sit there for two years. If it were a bill to do with farm aid, for example, it would be time-sensitive, and we were looking for a process to get it out of the limbo of the draw. But I think if you change the language too much to the concept of support, you have tied the hands of the subcommittee completely.

Let's say I came forward with a bill with 100 supporters—and nothing stops somebody from getting 200 supporters, 100 is just the threshold—and I went to the private members committee and said “Look, I have 210 people who are supporting this, who are going to vote for this, and this bill is through the House, so let's just speed it up”, then that committee completely loses its ability to analyse that bill.

So I would like to make two motions: first, that we separate out the issue of Mr. Bryden's concern, and given your answers, I think that bill should be going on its way; and secondly, I'd like to send this thing back to the subcommittee for a third time and look at the whole camel, because I think the camel is having problems moving. I would suggest you take the whole 100 rule out if you're going to go to this concept of support, because you are completely negating the process of the subcommittee, which is sitting there deciding on the votability of bills.

So I would move, first, that we separate the two issues—I don't know how you do that—and secondly, that this be sent back to the subcommittee. We have Mr. Blaikie's good judgment there, and I might even cruise back to have a look at what's going on. But this is not going in the direction it was intended.

I think the disaster occurred when it went through our committee and it was rushed through the House by shenanigans. It was never thought through carefully, and the clerks were never consulted on the wording. So I'd like to have this thing sent back to the subcommittee with the idea that it might be removed entirely, because it has lost its effectiveness.

The Chair: First I'll go to Mr. Blaikie, and then Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I would agree that there's merit in separating the two, and the committee may well want to vote for the motion to send it back to the subcommittee. But that seems to me only right if we do separate them, because we do have to solve the Bryden thing, and it seems to me that can be solved independent of the other issue.

So I would speak in support of the motion, assuming that if it passes, we'll then just try to deal with the Bryden thing and we'll consider the other matter to have been referred back to the subcommittee.

But at the same time, speaking for the motion, we'd want to disagree somewhat with what was said by the mover in the sense that, as someone who sat on that committee, I don't take it that the committee would feel obligated even if 301 people signed that. It might feel politically obligated, but it's not procedurally obligated or obligated by the criteria of what people are supposed to be considering when they consider whether it should be votable. That's not what people are supposed to be taking into consideration when they determine whether a bill or a motion should be votable.

I think it does say somewhere in the criteria how much support the bill has, but it doesn't say in the House. I think it has more to do with whether or not something is completely and totally obscure, as opposed to, numerically, how much support it has in the House of Commons. If you were to get into judging how much support something has before it goes to the House, then you might make judgments about ability based on how much support you think it will have when it gets to the House. The two really fall into the same category; it's just that one is demonstrated and one is not. That would certainly be contrary to what the subcommittee is asked to do when it's determining votable items, either to take that into account by way of demonstrated support prior to your decision or by anticipated support after your decision.

• 1155

I don't want to have the debate that we're going to have in the subcommittee now, but I don't want people to have the impression that it's necessarily the case that if there are 100 signatures or 200 signatures, this in any way actually requires the subcommittee to determine it votable. It could be otherwise.

The Chair: Before I go to the other speakers, it looks like we're having a little difficulty reinventing the camel.

A voice: Or racehorse.

The Chair: Or racehorse. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So we may not reach a consensus on that today.

I still have to hear from Mr. Bergeron. So we're essentially dealing with Ms. Parrish's motion to split the issue, refer the reconstructing of the camel and racehorse to the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business, and then dealing perhaps forthwith with the issue of Mr. Bryden's bill on the order of precedence.

Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, if we are to decide whether the Bryden item is to be separated from the more general problem, I want us to study this issue, but I want it studied on the proper bases. I do not want to impugn any of Ms. Parrish's motives at all, but when she put the two questions to the clerk on the difference between a bill that would be amended by a committee and a bill that would have been amended with the unanimous consent of the House, she drew a rather erroneous parallel. Mr. Bryden had the unanimous consent of the House, but why did he? The clerk could do nothing but give an affirmative answer to Ms. Parrish, who asked a very narrow question, namely if there was a process in the House to obtain unanimous consent. However, we could have allowed him to go somewhat further. I do not want to try to guess what he would have said, but I must say that Mr. Bryden obtained unanimous consent in the House to make minor changes. When we reread the bill, it is very clear that the changes are not minor.

Accordingly, we raised a matter of privilege in the House, which elicited comments from other colleagues in the House, people who had signed the bill and were not willing to have their signatures appearing on the bill as newly worded, after unanimous consent was given in the House for minor changes. These members said that there were serious problems. In this context, I am not sure we should separate one thing from another. If we do want to, as I said at the outset, let us do it in proper terms. We cannot say simply call it a House procedure if we amend it in committee. If the member moving it changes it after the House has unanimously authorized him to do so, it is the same thing, because it is another House procedure, but I do not think we are separating the two cases on the proper bases. No one is arguing that he obtained consensus in the House, but the House authorized him to make minor changes. I do not think we are agreed around the table on what minor changes constitute, since a number feel that the amendments to the bill were not minor and that, accordingly, any member who raised objections in the House could rise again and say he or she was totally opposed to picking up the bill where we left off simply because the committee refused to do its job and said: "As there was a House procedure and as there was unanimous consent, we refer it back. "We would be shirking our responsibilities and would not be properly acting on the request by the Speaker that we study this matter in the light of the matter of privilege raised in the House.

• 1200

[English]

The Chair: I'll take that as your lead-off intervention on whatever may happen to Mr. Bryden's bill.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, it is more than that. If you would hear me...

[English]

The Chair: I did hear you, Mr. Bergeron. All of our colleagues heard you. I think you were well understood.

Now I think we should deal with Ms. Parrish's motion.

Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I think we should separate the two issues of Mr. Bryden's bill because that's almost a separate reference from the Speaker. I mean, deal with Mr. Bryden's bill and come up with recommendations. There are two separate issues there and we should deal with them separately. I support that.

I did think that before we got into the camel discussion, there was starting to be a pretty broad consensus for the right-hand side of the page here. I'm not sure if I was misinterpreting that, but I know we talked about support and I'm willing to go with seconding as a.... It does seem to me that there was fairly broad support, Mr. Chairman, for what was on the right-hand side of the page to deal with that one issue.

I don't know whether we could refer it to the subcommittee. Maybe I misinterpreted the feeling of the committee, but I thought there was a consensus that this covered off most of our concerns and that we were moving that way. I'm happy to proceed with that myself.

I had one question for the clerk on this. Mr. Marleau, you mentioned that something on the nomination or the seconding form that would come forward would have to have a date on it or could clear up some confusion by having a date attached to it. That doesn't have to be in the Standing Orders. It can just be a form that's available. Do we have to say in here somewhere that it's a dated signature?

Mr. Robert Marleau: If you want to guarantee that they become stale-dated at one point, we should make it clear in the Standing Orders.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: So it would need to be somewhere in here—

Mr. Robert Marleau: Signed and dated.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: So just another short phrase that says “dated” would cover that off.

Mr. Chairman, my feeling is that we should separate Mr. Bryden's individual case from the whole other issue. I don't know if there is a consensus. I think if we made that small change on the dating of the signatures, there may be a consensus on what's on the right-hand side of the page here. I don't know if there is or not.

Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.): Where would the date go?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Maybe the clerk could tell us that. Maybe under the new standing order?

Mr. Robert Marleau: We would put it in 87(6)(a): “At any time after holding the draw, a Member may file with the Clerk a list containing the dated signatures of one hundred Members...”. If you want, you can put it in there.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: It seems to me that would cover that.

The Chair: Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Chairman, I still support the motion, but I think we should realize that they are connected in a way. The controversy around Mr. Bryden's situation arises out of people having different concepts of whether they were wanting his bill to just go forward for debate or whether they were actually supporting it.

When a minor change was made that turned out to be in some people's minds a change in substance, they said their signatures wouldn't apply any more. Their original notion of what they were doing when they were signing it was that they were supporting it, not recommending that it be put on the order of precedence, not seconding it in the traditional sense of just making sure that something gets on the floor even though you might be against it, but supporting it. Otherwise this complaint would not have arisen.

It's clear that the culture, if you like, the assumed culture of being one of the 100 signatories or more, regardless of what the subcommittee intended or what individual members of the subcommittee intended, was that people thought they were supporting the bill. When the bill was changed in a way that was seen not to be minor or not to be non-substantive by people who signed the bill, we had the controversy.

We can make a ruling or give advice to the Speaker on what he should do about this particular point of privilege, based on what we think are the rules now. The fact is that they are connected. If we were to change the rules in such a way that it only meant order of precedence or something like that, which I would not be for, then it would mean the situation around Mr. Bryden's bill would never arise. Presumably, if you think a bill of that nature should go ahead for debate, you would think it should go ahead for debate whether it had been changed in this substantive way or not.

• 1205

I was just concerned for a little while there that we were losing sight of the fact that there is a connection here between the two situations. I think maybe that's what Stéphane was saying as well. If we pass the motion and then we try to deal with the point of privilege, then we'll have to deal with it on the basis of what we think members of Parliament were doing when they signed Mr. Bryden's bill. In my view, it's clear that they thought they were supporting it, not recommending it.

The Chair: Mr. Kilger.

Mr. Bob Kilger: I just want to follow up on Mr. Blaikie's intervention. In substance, the bill should remain in the same form it's presented in. It's not a question of whether the sponsor of the bill deems the changes to be minor or major. It's the people who are the signatories who should decide and must decide whether in fact the changes they are making....

In terms of the process, I don't think we should accept changes. Members who are signing something should have their signatures.... “Well, that's okay; he made a minor change”. I would just ask the clerk whether it would resolve that situation if 87(6)(b) and 87(6)(c) were in place.

Mr. Robert Marleau: Not really. Well, 87(6)(c) would resolve it. It says the item would have to be in the same form at the time of transfer to the order of precedence as it was on the Notice Paper.

Mr. Bob Kilger: I don't want to engage in debate. Maybe Mr. Blaikie would like to say something.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: How does that prevent the same thing from happening—you know, somebody getting up and saying “Notwithstanding, I'd like unanimous consent to have it transferred even though it's not the same and I'm telling the House it's just a minor change”? The House takes the guy's word for it and then a week later finds out that they've been tricked.

It seems to me that you should have a hard and fast rule that you can't override this by unanimous consent. Otherwise people are put in the same spot as they were on Bryden's bill, which is that he gets up and says it's just a minor thing and nobody is in a position to argue with him until afterward, when they go and actually....

To me, the drafting needs to have something in it that says that is impossible. As it's drafted at the moment, that's still possible. Would it not be?

Mr. Robert Marleau: Unanimous consent to suspend 87(6)(c) would be possible.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Yes.

Mr. Robert Marleau: So you would need a sentence there that would say “The Speaker shall not entertain any unanimous consent to suspend Standing Order 87(6)(c)”.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Yes, then you're covered. The same trick that brought us to this state in the first place would still be possible unless you had what you just suggested.

The Chair: All right.

In the endless pursuit of the protection of ourselves from ourselves, Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I think Mr. Blaikie's interpretation is right. With unanimous consent, we could suspend almost all Standing Orders. However, in the light of what has happened, I would be very surprised if anyone wants to again give unanimous consent for another attempt to make a change, however minor, to a private member's bill. I think we have learned our lesson this time.

I would simply like clarification from you, Mr. Chairman. A number of people around the table who spoke to Ms. Parrish's motion had the impression we would be dealing with the two motions differently, but that we would be dealing with them, when, as I understand Ms. Parrish's proposal, if we vote in favour of this proposal, we split them and send the matter of Mr. Bryden back to the House exactly as it was. I think that would be acting irresponsibly, because we would not have acted on the request by the Speaker of the House.

• 1210

I want to understand clearly, Mr. Chairman. Is the vote we are about to hold to concern splitting the two issues so we may discuss them separately afterwards, or is it to concern referring the general matter of privilege to the sub-committee and send the Bryden matter to the House as it stood? This is what I have understood. If this is the case, there seems to be a problem.

[English]

The Chair: As I understand Ms. Parrish's motion, the challenge of reconstructing the camel would be referred to the subcommittee.

The privilege issue referred to us by the Speaker and our need to give advice to the Speaker would still have to be dealt with by us here. We could proceed on that today.

That's how I understand her motion. Before going further, I know that the Clerk of the House has other commitments, which are imminent, and if it is acceptable to the members, we could let the clerk depart when he has to. The deputy clerk would remain. Is that okay with members?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you.

Now, I tried to answer Mr. Bergeron's question to the best of my ability, and I didn't want to get into a big sidebar on it as I have other speakers, but since it's Ms. Parrish's motion, go ahead, Ms. Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: In support of my motion, to look at how you do it, if you separate out the two issues, that leaves this whole ball of wax to go back to the subcommittee, which has to deal with it.

But if you want to look at the Bryden issue, the only way to do that is to look at the background information in the report that came forward to the House, where it very clearly states the intent of the committee for that rule. Then you don't have to look into someone's mind and say, what did you think when you signed it? What you have to say is, this was the intent of the issue when it came to the House, it was approved precipitously, and Mr. Bryden was functioning under that rule, not under what we all think everybody thought.

If you separate the two out, you get rid of this whole issue and you send it back for reworking. But on the Bryden issue, you can't decide unless you get the original report back and look at the background information that led up to the recommendation, and then you base it on that. Is that clear? Or am I losing it here?

The Chair: In any event, your motion stands.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I move we vote on the motion.

The Chair: All right.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I call the question.

The Chair: Before I recognized you, Ms. Parrish, I had an indication from Mr. Bonin and from Ms. Catterall. If they wish to simply deal with the question now, we can do that without further debate. Just let me check with Monsieur Bonin.

There has been a suggestion that we move to dispose of the motion without further debate, Monsieur Bonin, unless you felt that you—

Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): For that motion, I can go along with that.

The Chair: All right. Perhaps the clerk would read the motion.

The Clerk of the Committee: It is moved that the issue be split and that this committee deal with the question of Mr. Bryden's bill, while the remaining questions raised concerning the 100 signatures be referred to the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business for further study.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I couldn't have said it better myself.

The Chair: It should read “concerning the 100-signature rule”.

The Clerk: Yes, “concerning the 100-signature rule”.

The Chair: Okay, that's the motion.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Colleagues, that will allow our colleagues at the subcommittee to hash the procedure around in a smaller forum and it will come back to us.

Now, on the issue of what advice we should give to the Speaker on Mr. Bryden's bill, we don't have a motion in front of us, but we are seeking direction from each other here. We have to give some advice to the Speaker.

I see a lot of interventions. I have already had an indication from Ms. Catterall and from Mr. Bonin. Then I'll look to the other side.

Ms. Catterall, then Mr. Bonin.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My intervention is more a clarification of something. At first reading, the House takes possession of a motion. Is that not correct? Therefore—

The Chair: Mr. Corbett nods yes.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Yes...? Therefore, I question the role of the committee to interpret the activities of the House when the motion belongs to the chair. I don't know if I interpret well what Mr. Blaikie said before. To me, this legislation is bad legislation and we're trying to make it good.

• 1215

The process is to bring it to first reading. After that you can't have a committee interfere with something that belongs to the House, that no longer belongs to members.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: We're not trying to get the committee to deal with it. The Speaker wants to deal with it and he wants our advice on it. It's not a question of the committee—

The Chair: Okay. Mr. Bonin has made his point.

Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: To me, the standing order as it stands is fairly simple: the people who sign are recommending that the item be placed in the order of precedence. They're not saying anything about whether they support it, they hate it, or they want it to proceed. That's all they're doing: getting it on the order of precedence. They're not even saying whether they want it to be votable.

So I guess I have to look at this in the context, and although we're referring it to the subcommittee, I would certainly like to indicate my preferred solution, that is, one, that there should be a standard form that makes it clear this is what members are signing when they add their names to that list of 100, that it says clearly that the undersigned support the bill and motion and topic being added to the order of precedence for private members' business, independent of the draw. Then they know what they're signing. They're not indicating support.

Secondly, I believe that if a bill or motion is changed, no matter if in the opinion of the mover it's a minor change, an editorial change or whatever, it's the responsibility of the member, who is already getting special treatment, to notify everybody who signed that form that there has been a change to the bill, to tell them what it is, and to ask them to indicate if they wish to continue their support for putting it on the order of precedence.

In the interim, having referred the issue to the subcommittee, I don't think we can leave the Speaker in limbo. What I would suggest we do, since the standing order is silent on this matter, is that we advise the Speaker of what we've done in terms of referring it to the subcommittee and that in the interim we recommend that the Speaker.... Now I'm not sure procedurally how I should order this, the intention being that it should not be simply added to the order of precedence before Mr. Bryden has informed all those who supported it of the change in his bill and has asked them if they wish to continue their support. If 100 do wish to continue their support or enough wish to be added to make it 100, then it should be reinstated as it was.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Excellent, Marlene.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Basically you're suggesting that he start the process over again.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Yes.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Initially he had 108, so if eight drop off he's still okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Agreed.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Catterall, just to clarify, when you used the words to articulate what you were recommending, you used the words “support” that an item be put “on the order of precedence”. You have confused the chair—

Ms. Marlene Catterall: No, it should be “recommend”. I'm sorry.

The Chair: Good enough. So you are supporting the concept of recommending.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you.

Now I'll go to the other side. I think Monsieur Bergeron had a.... I think we're trying to get into the issue of advice to the Speaker on Mr. Bryden's bill.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: First to Mr. Bergeron, then to Ms. Parrish.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I agree totally with Ms. Catterall's proposal, to the extent that the Standing Orders, as we speak, do not talk of recommending but provide “who supports a specific item”, “qui appuient une affaire précise”. So the words “support" and “appuient” are clearly indicated in the existing Standing Orders.

I therefore have no choice but to totally support Ms. Catterall's proposal to have the member who wants his bill return to the stage it was at to go and see all members who supported the bill initially and ask them if they continue to support it. If there are over 100 members, the bill goes back to where it was, if there are fewer than 100, the bill drops to the bottom of the list.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. I think Ms. Parrish—

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: No, I'll defer to Mr. Blaikie.

The Chair: We'll go to Mr. Blaikie and then.... No, I have to get to Mr. Strahl fairly quickly here, so Mr. Strahl first, then Mr. Blaikie.

• 1220

Mr. Chuck Strahl: The first point, which was just made by Stéphane, is that the current Standing Orders talk about support, so that's what we have to live with. I agree with the conclusion of Ms. Catterall. The only other suggestion we could have is that the bill be put back in its original form, but seeing that horse has already gone, I don't see how that is possible. That Campbell racehorse is out.

Given what we've heard to date, I think that's the best recommendation, which is an unfortunate thing all around for Mr. Bryden. I don't want to fault him too much on this, because I think in good faith he thought he was going through all the steps. The problem, as we've already discussed at length, is the ambiguity. I think the best thing we can do at this time is to recommend that he reconfirm it with those signatories. It's unfortunate that his bill has to be our learning process. On the other hand, if he has that broad support, he can get it back into the loop fairly quickly.

The Chair: Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I think we could advise the Speaker that Mr. Bryden's bill would have to be reconfirmed with the signatories, independent of all the varying theories that exist around the table about how the process should be changed or what the current process means. I would think there is at least a consensus, or even unanimity, in the committee that some kind of reconfirmation in the event of a change in the bill would be necessary, whether the current process means support substantively or support for going on the order of precedence, or whether what the subcommittee eventually recommends will mean support for going on the order of precedence or support substantively.

We all seem to agree that some kind of reconfirmation, no matter how you understand what you're doing when you sign, would be necessary when there's a change. It seems to me we could agree to advise the Speaker that he should ask Mr. Bryden to reconfirm the signatures. If he has 100 after he has reconfirmed, then it would proceed as it would under the existing procedure. Who knows, the procedure might be changed some day, subject to some recommendation by the subcommittee. But for now, at least as far as Mr. Bryden's bill is concerned, all that would be required would be this process of reconfirmation and then the thing could be settled.

The Chair: Before I recognize Ms. Parrish, we have at least a few suggestions as to what we would say to the Speaker about Mr. Bryden's bill. I hope colleagues will agree with the chair that if we are to take an action that would affect Mr. Bryden's bill negatively, we must—I underline must—hear from Mr. Bryden first. It would be very inappropriate, in the view of the chair, for us to take a step that would prejudice the position of a member without at least hearing from the member. Your chair would want that consideration, as I'm sure any member would.

Secondly, if Mr. Bryden followed the rules that then existed, and if we were to recommend the imposition on him of a higher standard than the standard we were ultimately to recommend to the chair or to the House through the subcommittee and back through this committee for revision to the camels rule, one could argue it would be unfair to Mr. Bryden to make him comply with a standard that we would not carry through and place in the new rule.

I just ask members to keep that in mind. If it is the desire of the committee to recommend a course to the Speaker that would impact negatively on Mr. Bryden's bill, then I think we have to hear from him. However—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: We don't know how it will impact on him. You are prejudging that it would impact negatively. He may be able to get the 100 signatures, no problem, and move ahead.

The Chair: We would be in fact imposing an ad hoc set of rules on Mr. Bryden that we would not have imposed on anyone else.

• 1225

Mr. Bill Blaikie: It would be up to the Speaker whether he accepted our recommendation or not. We would simply be making a recommendation to the Speaker that we've been invited to make. The Speaker has already said there is a circumstance here that has to be addressed. It's not a question of negatively affecting Mr. Bryden's bill or imposing anything on him; it's a question of doing what has been requested of us by the chair.

The Chair: I accept what you've said, Mr. Blaikie. It's just that in terms of fairness—and I'm sure we're all in agreement with that—Mr. Bryden, the member involved, I think should—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Has he asked to appear before the committee?

The Chair: Not to my knowledge.

Now I'll go to Ms. Parrish, then Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Well, first of all, I agree with Mr. Blaikie that the Speaker isn't necessarily going to conform to what we recommend. So I would suggest we word our recommendation in such a way as to give him some flexibility.

Number one, I think you should inform the Speaker that we are sending the whole issue back for restudy at the subcommittee so that he knows whatever decision he makes on this is not going to set a precedent forever. That has to be clear to him. This is a one-time-only decision he has to make.

Secondly, I seriously recommend that he be advised to glance at the report that precipitated that rule so that he'll see what the intention of the committee was.

Thirdly, I think we should suggest to him that given our interpretation of the report, we believe asking Mr. Bryden to reconfirm those signatures would make everybody's life easier as we go back to restudy the original rule. That leaves him enough flexibility that he can make either of those two recommendations, and it does not put an unfair burden on Mr. Bryden, because I think he was functioning appropriately under the rules as he interpreted them, and as I interpret them.

So we tell him we're restudying it so it is not a precedent-making decision; we highly recommend he read the background material that led up to the recommendation, so he knows what the intent of that committee was; and we strongly feel that to solve this problem, Mr. Bryden should just reconfirm those signatures. He had 110, and he's going to get 100. It's not going to be a big problem. The only onerous burden on him is to chat with all those people one more time, and that's not going to kill him.

Fourthly, I don't believe having him here is going to help. I think we're going to get into a huge discussion of his interpretation of the way the rules were set up. I love Mr. Bryden. He's a good man. But I don't want to sit through that. I think our recommendations to the Speaker should acquiesce to his authority and his responsibility and let him make the final decision. I don't think we should be making it here.

The Chair: Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: It wasn't my intention necessarily to limit Mr. Bryden to only the people he had originally signing. As far as I'm concerned, if he can get 100 members, either original or new signatories.... And I was worried that we kept using the word “reconfirm” and that we might be restricting him. That wasn't my intention, and I hope we can word it that way.

Secondly, I'm not sure I agree that we need to hear from Mr. Bryden, but if the chair feels we do, then I feel we also need to hear from Mr. Chatters, because it's Mr. Chatters who feels his privileges have been violated. Therefore, clearly, if there is a corrective measure taken to put him and other members of Parliament back in the same situation before they even signed the bill and certainly before it was amended, there can be no argument with that. But I think we have to know from him, if we're hearing from Mr. Bryden, that this is a satisfactory resolution.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: It's also in the House on this. They had their say, and now we have our say on what they said.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Yes. Anyway, I hope we can dispose of it, preferably this morning.

The Chair: Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I agree that if we bring in Mr. Bryden you're going to open a can of worms, because there may be five or six people who say “Well, let me tell you what I thought I signed”, and all that stuff. I think Mr. Bryden deliberately took a few hours to get his thoughts together and get his points down in the House. Mr. Chatters raised it. We saw what he said. We have access to that in Hansard. I think we should just go ahead with this as is.

The only question I had—and maybe Ms. Catterall could tell me what she.... The only concern I have is that right now that bill has dropped down to the bottom of the Order Paper and it takes one of the spots that's allocated for this 100-signature thing. So the only question is—and I hate to raise this—do we leave him on there while he gathers his signatures, or do we...?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I think we leave the spot empty until he gathers the signatures.

• 1230

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'm cool with that. That's fine. But again, that may be something the Speaker has to consider, because if he says this is now out of here, well, then poor Mr. Bryden has lost his spot on the Order Paper.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Let's tell him to give Mr. Bryden two weeks, three weeks, a month, or whatever.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Yes, or give him until the end of the session. I don't care. But we just don't want him to suddenly say now Mr. Bryden dropped down to his original spot, which is, i.e., no status at all. So my recommendation would be to follow your motion and that he have that spot reserved for a period of time to give him adequate time to gather the hundred signatures.

The Chair: I don't see any further speakers.

An hon. member: Question.

The Chair: I don't have a question, colleagues.

Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: You may not have a motion, but it would seem an appropriate time for the chair to recognize what has been said and make a recommendation or ask for a motion.

The Chair: Your chair would at the present time have some difficulty cobbling this into something coherent that we could....

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I move that the committee advise the Speaker that we have referred the hundred-signature process to the subcommittee for review and clarification, and that in the interim, we recommend that the Speaker—procedurally I may need some help here as to what the Speaker can and cannot do—that the Speaker consider the spot on the list occupied by Mr. Bryden's motion to be vacant; that Mr. Bryden be required to notify members of Parliament that his bill has been changed and ask if they wish to recommend still that it be placed in the order of precedence outside the draw; and that the Speaker specify a time period for which the spot will be kept vacant for the reinstatement of Mr. Bryden's bill where it now is.

A voice: And that would be a reinstatement if he gets the signatures.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Yes.

The Chair: I'm just going to ask the clerk.

Mr. Corbett, you've heard the motion. Does that get us where we want to go? Is that okay?

Mr. William Corbett: I think that would be useful to the Speaker indeed, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Okay.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: We don't have to advise him on the question of privilege, I guess.

The Chair: There's not going to be any confusion about what a vacant spot on the order of precedence is? Does this mean Mr. Bryden's bill is sort of there, conditionally there?

Mr. William Corbett: The one such seconded item on the order of precedence.... In other words, when the Speaker gets to deliver this, in essence as the second part of his ruling, we can clarify the language somewhat. But the intent of what the committee has stated is quite clear: that the one spot available to those with one hundred signatures is held in abeyance, held vacant, and that Mr. Bryden be given a period of time in which to get the signatures.

If he gets the signatures—to use the language of Mr. Blaikie, if he reattains the status of one hundred signatures—the item will then go forward in the spot allocated for those with one hundred signatures. If he doesn't get them, we will then proceed on the basis that there is no one-hundred-signature item, and we'll go to the next member who has gathered one hundred signatures. That is what I take to have been discussed here that you will be recommending to the Speaker.

The Chair: That's a reasonable recapitulation of what it was. The only difficulty the chair has is that Mr. Bryden's bill is now on the order of precedence, and it's moving up in due course. Our motion assumes that it is not. So the question is, what does the Speaker do if Mr. Bryden does not re-secure the one hundred signatures?

Mr. Bill Blaikie: That spot becomes open to another bill that has a hundred signatures.

The Chair: Let me deal with the clerk on this, please.

• 1235

Mr. William Corbett: Mr. Chairman, under the Standing Orders the Speaker is empowered to make decisions with regard to the ordering of private members' business. Indeed, in the initial ruling or partial decision on this, the Speaker dropped Mr. Bryden's item to the bottom of the order of precedence and did indicate, I think, at that time to the House that he would not allow an exchange to put it back to the top but that he would allow it to climb back up. But the Speaker can indeed bring it back down. The Speaker will have to examine what state it has reached in its climb back up the order of precedence. But the Speaker can deal with this by simply moving it back to the bottom of the order of precedence and giving a period of time.

The Chair: If Mr. Bryden did not succeed in resecuring the 100 signatures, the Speaker would then remove the item from the order of precedence. Is that in effect what he would do?

Mr. William Corbett: If he accepts the recommendation of this committee, yes, he would and he could. The Speaker has that power.

The Chair: All right. That's why I have raised that.

The way we've structured our report now, it seems to be saying that Mr. Bryden's item is not to be on the order of precedence, or if there, only conditionally there, or entitled to a vacant spot. The actual question of whether he's on or off the order of precedence hasn't been nailed down. Would it be better for us to say that he's not on the order of precedence, or would it be better to continue with the motion as drafted and let the Speaker figure it out later?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: May I make a recommendation, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: We'll hear from Mr. Corbett first.

Mr. William Corbett: I think under the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, insofar as these are recommendations to the Speaker, it would probably be better to leave it to the Speaker, and we can make advice under the circumstances.

The Chair: Okay.

First is Mr. Strahl, then Ms. Parrish.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Maybe that's best.

I was just thinking that the timeframe we could give Mr. Bryden is to say that between now and the time his bill comes up to the top of the order of precedence, he has to gather 100 signatures. In that way he continues to climb up the ladder over the next three, four, five weeks, or whatever it would take him, and he doesn't have this feeling of hopelessness that he's forever in the pit. That also gives a timeframe for the Speaker. That way Mr. Bryden gets whatever number of weeks that would be to gather the signatures. If by the time he gets to the top of the pile he has the 100 signatures, he just goes on. That way the order of precedence is filled, Mr. Bryden has some hope at the end of the tunnel, and it's a definable period of time for the Speaker. It's not just an arbitrary thing. If he doesn't get the 100 signatures by the time he gets to top of the pile, then it is just gone.

The Chair: I'm sure these words will be helpful to the Speaker.

Just before recognizing Ms. Parrish, the clerk indicates that in the normal course of events Mr. Bryden's bill would get to the top of the order about March 22.

Ms. Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Has the bill already been to the private members' business committee and deemed votable?

Mr. William Corbett: Yes, I believe so.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I'll tell you quite frankly that unless the recommendation to the Speaker—and I think you as chairman of this committee should talk to him—gives him enough flexibility, based on my interpretation of it, I think we're penalizing Mr. Bryden unfairly. We're making him go through all this again even though he thinks he did the right thing in the first place.

The subcommittee already took that bill over and presented it to the House as votable. Whoever objected to it has the opportunity to vote against it when it comes up for a vote.

I would love for you to say that there was a certain degree of consensus around the table that Mr. Bryden in good faith should go get those signatures confirmed again, and he has a month to do it. But I think you should leave enough flexibility for the Speaker to say “I think he was functioning under the rules as they were set. The private members' business committee deemed this votable, and I think the person who's objecting has an opportunity to vote against it.”

The Speaker gets big bucks to do his job, and I don't think we should be doing it. I think we've had a thorough discussion. We found a problem with the wording of the regulation, and we're dealing with that. But I don't think we should be penalizing Mr. Bryden for this. I think Mr. Speaker should have enough flexibility to know what the feelings were here and to make up his own mind based on his interpretation of what the original committee recommended. I think you could explain that to him without a formal written motion—I have absolute faith that you can do this well—and then let Mr. Speaker make his decision.

• 1240

I really think we're shafting Mr. Bryden here, based on one person objecting. He had 108 signatures, the private members' business committee deemed it votable, and the person who objected has an opportunity to vote against it when it comes to the House. This is unbelievable. He's getting railroaded here. I think the Speaker has to be given enough flexibility to make a reasonable decision.

The Chair: Thank you. That was similar to the point I tried to make earlier, that if we're going to take a decision that impacts Mr. Bryden's bill, we should know when we do it, and always we should be providing a hearing for these things when we take decisions. That's the chair's view. In any event, I'll be guided by what members want.

Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I wonder if the clerk might read a written version I gave to her. Then if members want to move an amendment to it, or indeed if they want to move that we hear from Mr. Bryden and Mr. Chatters before dealing with it, they can. But at least if the motion is read, then people who might want to make modifications have a chance to do that, or we can dispose of it in one way or another.

The Chair: Okay. Let's hear the motion.

The Clerk: It is as follows:

We advise the Speaker that we've referred the 100-signature process to the subcommittee for review and clarification. In the interim, we recommend the Speaker leave Mr. Bryden's bill on the order of precedence, that he advise Mr. Bryden that he will have a defined period of time to notify members that there has been a change in his bill and what the change is and to confirm that there are 100 members who recommend that the amended bill be placed on the order of precedence.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: If the word were “should” instead of “will”, and it said “Mr. Bryden should reconfirm”, he would take that responsibility on. But I think if you tell the Speaker that he “must” reconfirm those signatures, then you have had a member in the House who's rethought the issue, changed his mind, and was there when unanimous consent was given, and now this whole bill is being held up because one person objected to it.

It's already the property of the House once the private members' business committee deems it votable. That is a very fundamental principle. I chaired that committee for four years. When people go into the House and ask for unanimous consent when we didn't deem them votable, we have automatically not given it because it subverts that process.

So I want this to be kept as flexible as possible. If Mr. Bryden's a smart cookie, he'll get them reconfirmed so that this whole issue dies. But other than that, it's an unfair thing to do to him based on one man objecting after he was in the House to give unanimous consent. This is ridiculous. Who's running this?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: It may be that 100 people got railroaded, Carolyn, not just one guy. One stood up. The Bloc doesn't like the bill now. There are lots of people. So you can't say that one person protested. There may be many who protested. One made the privilege argument, and that's what we're dealing with, and we should make recommendations. But I think it's quite an assumption to say that only one person protested it. There are many who will protest it.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: That's why the word “should” should be used—“Mr. Bryden should reconfirm” the signatures of those people. But I don't think he should be moved to the bottom of the Order Paper. I think if he's sharp, he'll get it done in time for when his bill comes to the top.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: That was my point too.

The Chair: We have a motion. We can adopt it if we wish or—

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Can we change the word “must” to “should” if the word “must” is in there?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: It's not “must”.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: The Speaker will interpret it anyway. This is just a recommendation to the Speaker.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): I'd go with the word “must”. He's getting a chance to do it, and he must do that to achieve what he wants.

The Chair: With regard to the wording of the motion, at one point it confirms the position of Mr. Bryden's bill on the order of precedence, and then in another position it's seeking to have people confirm that it remain on the order of precedence. It doesn't say what happens if they don't recommend.

Maybe committee members would like to recommend to Mr. Bryden that it would help immensely if he could reconfirm the 100-member support. If that were done, then the alleged problem with his bill would disappear, and we would then just have to deal with revising the rule. If he couldn't reconfirm the support, then it might still be an issue for some members.

• 1245

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Chair, the trouble with giving recommendations to the Speaker in words like “it would help immensely if somebody might do something” is that it doesn't tell him what we think about the subject. It would help immensely, of course, but—

The Chair: I wasn't recommending that wording.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay, well, that's what you sort of said. Actually, it is what you said.

The Chair: That's exactly what I said. That was the thrust of what I—

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Mr. Chairman, I think we should call this before we lose our quorum.

The Chair: Yes, I think so.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: It has been going in circles for a while.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I amend the notice to read “should” instead of “will”.

The Chair: So then he “should” have a defined period of time to notify members.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Can we read it? I'm not sure that fits in the context.

The Clerk: The motion:

We advise the Speaker that we've referred the 100-signature process to the subcommittee for review and clarification. In the interim, we recommend that the Speaker leave Mr. Bryden's bill on the order of precedence and that he advise Mr. Bryden that he should have a defined period of time to notify members that there has been a change in his bill and what the change is, and to confirm that there are 100 members who recommend that the amended bill be placed on the order of precedence.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: To make everybody happy: “advise Mr. Bryden that he will have a defined opportunity to reconfirm”. Do you like that better?

The Clerk: “Defined opportunity”.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Yes.

The Clerk: Do you want to drop the whole business about “to notify members that there has been a change in his bill?”

Ms. Marlene Catterall: No, I think that should be....

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I am not sure a group writing exercise is a good thing. We are wasting time like crazy, and we do not have it to waste. It seems to me that we understand the spirit of the proposal we want to send to the Speaker. Why not let the clerk prepare a resolution, which she will present at the next meeting? We could then pass a resolution, which would be our report. We are not in the habit of writing group reports. Let us give the research assistant and the clerk the job of writing a text and we will adopt the report for the Chair at our next meeting, Mr. Chairman. That is my suggestion.

[English]

Mr. John Richardson: Mr. Bryden has been caught out in a situation where, if he stays on the order of precedence, he will work up, but if he doesn't have the 100 signatures, it's gone. That is a requirement. This is not conditional; this is an assertive situation. He must meet that or he will not have that position.

Keep it as simple as possible, and then it is easier to understand.

The Chair: We're badly in need of a crisp motion that will serve our intentions well. I'm not so sure we have the precise wording we need. Mr. Bergeron has made a good suggestion: that we ask the clerk to draft something that will reflect our intentions, and we would bring it back to the next meeting.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I also suggest to the chairman that it might be fair, given that the clock is ticking, that you suggest that the general consensus of the committee seems to be leaning toward reconfirming the signatures so Mr. Bryden can get on with that business. Even though he objects, he may get started immediately, because we're in recess for a week next week.

The Chair: That's a good suggestion. I'm happy to convey that directly to Mr. Bryden. He has three weeks, actually.

We'll then conclude our discussions on this, having not finished.

We'll adjourn to Thursday at 11 a.m.